The good, the bad and the ugly of aerial photography - Part 1: Why shoot aerials?

Man has always had the dream of flight – but so has the photographer. It’s a unique experience to shoot from the air, and it has some incredible benefits in many senses. But as one might discover, it often carries a number of problems and a hefty price tag. I personally started my romance with serious aerial photography about three years ago, and I’ve been hooked ever since. My experiences have mostly been amazing but admittedly not always so, and I’ve come to wonder what makes photography flights in different settings so… well, different.

In this series of articles I’ll try to survey my own experience with aerial shooting, including the different aircrafts to shoot from, what equipment to use, what technicalities to put an emphasis on and of course, the prices. I’ll talk about some of my aerial shoots, and explain what distinguished them and what I learned. Aerial photography can be wonderful and exhilarating, but it can also be disappointing if you don’t know what you’re getting yourself into. I hope the following articles help with this.

An aerial panorama of one of the most epic light shows I’ve ever seen. Wonderfully clear sun rays were peeking from between the thick cloud layer and the jagged mount Molhøgtinden and its surrounding peaks in the Lofoten Islands during my workshop there. I was stunned with excitement and couldn’t believe my eyes. After a few seconds I shook my head, picked my jaw up and went back to shooting. This image is the result.

So what makes aerial photography so darn good? A great many things. First of all, it allows for a new – and extremely different – angle of shooting. There’s a huge difference in the angle of view when shooting from the ground, or even from a mountaintop, and when shooting from hundreds of meters above the landscape. The same scenery gains another dimension, and the viewer gets a much better understanding of the surroundings. Perspective deformations are also less pronounced since there’s less of a difference in distance to the subject’s different parts.

An aerial shot of Deadvlei, Namibia. It’s incredible to realize that most of the clay pan is actually devoid of trees - which is hard to perceive when you’re down there.

It can be claimed that only from the air, one can see the landscape for what it really is. Unseen parts of the setting can be exposed, for example ones that are obscured by mountains, and with good visibility, one can see and shoot much farther than from the ground. In the image below, shot from a helicopter in Holuhraun, Iceland, several of these advantages are demonstrated: first of all, when shooting from the ground, it was impossible to get a shot of the lava which includes the caldera itself. Secondly, this angle allows for inclusion of the lava river in the background, which contributes a great deal to the composition.

In addition, some landscapes are hard to get to – not to mention shoot – from the ground, especially close enough to make them interesting. A good example of this is an erupting volcano. If the lava flow is strong, it can be impossible to go near the eruption point itself, but from the air, it can often be seen quite clearly.

But it’s really not limited to volcanoes. Instead of traversing miles and miles on foot, camping, climbing and struggling, one might take a short flight, shoot a location and fly back in time for dinner. Sounds enticing, and it truly is. Moreover, it’s quite addictive, so much so that when visiting a new location, I often feel like I have to shoot it from the air, even if there isn’t much sense in it. One mustn’t forget that aerial photography is an experience to cherish, not to be taken for granted. Do it when you must, when it offers real benefits, and not just as a means to shoot without making an effort.

The terminal of Ilulissat glacier, Greenland.

In the next article in the series I’ll talk about the two most popular aircrafts for aerial photography.

Comments

Sounds interesting. I have always been fascinated by aerial photography, but it has always looked kind of scary to try, you know. "Man has always had the dream of flight – but so has the photographer"- totally true. Ready and determined to try out aerial photography at last after your article. thanks a lot for a bit of inspiration!

I love aerials - mostly for the different perspective. A no-doors helicopter on Oahu was wonderful and then some great views of Shark Bay, Western Australia from a commercial aircraft and then a cessna (window open) over Exmouth/Ningaloo Reef. 24-105mm was a useful focal range from the cessna, 1/1250 second minimum shutter speed and back off the aperture a couple of stops to increase sharpness even if it means upping the ISO a bit. Shadows can look good but the contrast can be very high so ETTR and watch your sensor's ability to lift shadows... Shooting in the middle of the day to minimise shadows and horizon haze eg aerial water shots. Commercial aircraft windows need seats in front of the wing if possible, ~80-120mm as the window clarity tends to be better in the centre so wide angle shots tend to be cropped anyway. Use a strap as the wind is high. Any filters (eg CPL) should be screw on. Any other tips? https://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmarriottsydney/

Drones are now common stuff. Much better experience is shooting from light aircraft with usual equipment, which allows you, at least, to use lenses heavier than some cheap wide-angle. Of course, drone, even quite expensive one, is cheaper than the cheapest two-seater airplane, safer for an operator, etc., etc.... but, well, it's personal experience that makes photography and photographer. And haters/paranoics/state security, who would gladly shoot down drone just for fun, would think twice of messing with manned aircraft.

What type of lens do you find most useful for photos from helicopters? What was used in the shots above.? Some great photos above.

Photography is one of my hobbies. Ironically, one of my other hobbies is flying and I own a helicopter and am a private pilot. I get to see some great sights/views; however as I'm the one on the controls, can't do both at once

this is where a camera capable of recording 4K would be of use I guess, since you can set it to record while flying, and grab 8MP stills from some frames and possibly do some stitching to create a panorama.

inch floppy: there's no need for shooting 4K movies and grabbing stills out of them. Just set your system camera to interval shooting every second or alike, and here you go. Sure, this is by no means ersatz for careful framing, but better than nothing anyway. This is the technique I am using while paragliding – usually, you need here both hands as well for flying, plus your entire body.

Actually, it is possible to both fly and shoot at the same time - at least in a fixed-wing aircraft (I assume that with a rotary wing aircraft, you need both hands on pretty much all the time). I have a 2 seat Cessna, and enjoy taking photos from it regularly. Of course, that's only possible when conditions allow - away from busy airspace and, well, away from pretty much anything that demands attention except the scenery. Most light aircraft are quite stable enough to be flown "hands off" for long enough to catch a quick shot or two, but it certainly requires planning, coordination and care.

There is one kind of aerial photography which is actually free and easy to do!!! Simply finding a high elevation point with a steep slope towards the area you want to capture and then using maybe a short telephoto...

Two examples where there is a real difference (which is not shown in the gallery here) is when shooting directly down over a wide area (such as reconnaissance photography) rather than across the region; or (obviously) in a very flat region.

I know that photographing from a high elevation point cannot properly qualify as aerial photography. But in the final results, it can approach it and maybe give the same results, at least for some kind of aerial photography images, like for example those suggesting a line of sight of the viewer going down about 20-30 degrees from an ipothetical horizontal line goint from the viewer to infinity. Using a short telephoto would also help to cut off the foreground. For example, the first image in this article is considered as aerial photography, but looking at the topography of the region, the image could have been taken also from a high elevation point.After all, a helicopter flight runs at about 4000 euro for one hour, a chartered plane probably more. Reaching a prominent landmark is about 1% that cost (some gasoline for the car, a sandwitch, some drink, etc.)

I completed my Flight training in 2006 and enjoy flying my microlight locally.The landscape always looks amazing. The changing light, mist, cloud and just the angle of the sunlight helps produce some incredible images. Getting airborne just as the sun is rising is a fantastic experience.

Why do aerial photography? That's an easy one, if you have the time and money to afford the travel to exotic locations and the gear needed and or the hiring of the plane to be able to do it. If you have all of those items lined up, there'd be no reason not to, right?

A much less expensive and (to my opinion) equally satisfying approach to aerial photography is to always ask for a window seat and away from the wings when you travel by plane. It does not always work, what with clouds, haze, the sun against the view....etc. But, when it works, there are many spectacular landscapes to take pictures, especially when traveling over the Rockies and over the Arizona Nevada area. Surprisingly, the small sensor cameras are as good as the more expensive ones. I always try not to miss any such opportunity.

I find the windows to be filthy and/or very scratched - hard to get a decent picture. R/C airplane or drone is the way to go! Before drones, for flying where I don't have a huge landing area for the my plane, I also looked into using a tethered "weather balloon" but couldn't;t figure out how I'd connect the camera and helium isn't cheap.

I would like to point out however that Holuhraun (the volcano) Erez photographed was done illegally, the police & authorities put a no fly zone ban within 10-20km radius from the eruption.

Thus Erez has violated not only Icelandic law but endangered other people. This has already been brought to attention to the authorities who are now investigating.

There is already one helicopter pilot who is facing charges along with several people who travelled in trucks & this can get you 2 years of jailtime if not up to five years. Please respect the LAWS that are in place in the country you visit.

You are a great landscape photographer but that does NOT make you above the law.

everyone does what he does better. I prefer photography to writing. Erez Marom probably too, why do you you think its done illegally, moreover we live only once to skip such beauty, also its a resource mainly for photoart discussion versus legal issues

ThatCamFan... reality check: Whether someone is above the law or not is determined by how much that person is getting paid; how much people are willing to pay for you to break the law, and whether or not the punishment trumps the reward. Generally speaking, money trumps the "law", which is why the "law" mostly controls people who don't have a considerable amount of money.... Now let's get back to talking about photography. ;)

While I agree that one should respect the laws and customs of a country you're visiting, I think your post is somewhat harsh. It's not outside the realm of possibility that he asked for official permission first.

1. The no-fly zone means that the controlled airspace was closed. Flying under VFR was still possible. In fact there were dozens of sightseeing flights each day - you could even book them from Reykjavik or elsewhere. Would they have been illegal, they wouldn't have openly advertised them all over they city, right?

2. The pilot that is being charged has actually landed a billionaire in front of the eruption (and that was illegal). Yes, this has nothing to do with theses images.

3. Yes, there were people entering the area by land illegally. But with the right contacts you could get a media permit. In which way does this relate to the post?

In sum: Nothing illegal, no one was hurt, amazing images were captured. Have a nice day :)

I appreciate your concern, but you're simply wrong. The pilot facing charges was one who landed illegally. There were helis and planes flying over the eruption for months on end with police presence all around - do you really think they wouldn't be stopped if this were illegal?In addition I had an official entry permit to the eruption site.I wish people would think before they accuse.

First of all, those planes and helis must have been flying under the radar which is just as illegal, even commercial flight was directed to go around the area, and only news media were allowed by police to barely go inside the area and only then if they were NEWS MEDIA.you are a photographer not a reporter so I guess some lying was involved?And just for people to know how dangerous this is: Even at the border of the blockaded zone the police almost fell ill due to toxic gas.

You are wrong on many levels, and I have to say insinuating that I'd do something illegal and then write an article about it is quite insulting. I'll answer you anyway, in the hope that my answer will deter you from falsely accusing people in the future.No lying was involved. Not only news people were allowed in. Some of my Icelandic photographer friends were allowed in without any problem on their merits alone, and I was let in due to a letter of intent from NG, with whom I was involved in a book several months before.The blockaded zone's border was wayyy too far to feel or even smell anything. I'm talking tens of km if not more.Upon reaching 1.5 km from the eruption itself I could smell it a bit, but generally it wasn't much, and very far from nauseating. I hope this settles your doubts.

The airspace had been closed only for a few days, right after the eruption started. Authorities were fearing an explosive eruption around Bárðarbunga.

But after that the airspace was indeed open and plenty of commercial flights allowed to fly over the eruption site at Holuhraun. Nobody allowed to land close to the eruption site without special permissions.

Had a look at the possibility of flying over myself, but way too expensive for my pockets. Something around 1200/1500 euros

Yes and no. The overall quality has gone down a bit, but drones have opened the activity to millions who can't afford any other way. Drones are cheap, and can take 4K movies, as well as medium resolution stills, both of which are better than nothing. For me, I'd prefer my D810/24-104 and a helicopter.

I would make the prediction that licensed helicopter and general aviation pilots employed in aerial photography have generated fewer complaints since the beginning of aviation than amateur drone pilots will generate in the first decade of the phenomenon. Yes, drones have made aerial photography ubiquitous, but they've also generated tremendous furor, and for what, lower quality images and irresponsible recreation?

Depends where you are, of course. Nothing more irritating than helicopter tours through places like the Grand Canyon, along the Na Pali coast, etc. Copter-tours are a PITA. I do agree that amateur drone operators need to learn some etiquette. But I wouldn't call the videos low quality in general. I've seen some spectacular videos created by amateur drones.

As a licensed pilot and photographer, my take is that drone photography has not only enhanced aerial photography, but has also given us images that were virtually impossible before. You can position a drone in places where you can't physically hover a helicopter. The quality from drones are often as good or better as shots from any other platform. Have you forgotten that turbine scale helicopters were used to haul Canon 5D2 and 24-70 lens on a gimble? That same type of platform can easily haul around a 100mp medium format camera and lens.

They used to cost about $7500 - $12000 depending on options (types of blades, and later battery capacity). Today you can pay the same amount and get far more for your money on a much more stable platform.

Drone operators are making a mess of things, but changing aerial photography for the better on the cheap.

I've seen tourist helos at grand canyon and Niagara Falls, but I've yet to see a "drone" anywhere (and I fly R/C airplane and would notice one if it was around). We hear about shark attacks due to the "over coverage" by the media, but we the odds of us or anyone we know being attacked are very low. Same with drones.Most drones shoot videos, very rare to see stills. I surmise that's because stills (being much higher res and not moving) will show vibration much more.When I shoot stills with my R/C airplane, I turn the motor off and glide. Otherwise the pictures are mediocre. I doubt they can shoot good stills from drones with 4 rotors working very hard (the drones weigh 2-3 lbs).

Tella, you make an excellent point - especially in regard to wildlife photography (flying a small drone over a pride of lions, or a herd of antelope on the savannah is much less intrusive than using a helicopter). The same is true as well for underwater wildlife photography (with submersibles)

Wow, I thought this was an article on aerial photography, not on sustainability (which BTW I teach together with energy conservation). I would like to make a couple of points. Firstly, this kind of photography has been producing some unique, inspiring and breathtakingly beautiful images. Also, it has been documenting the horrible scarring of the planet done by human development. This contributes to increase people's love for the Earth and awareness of the crimes perpetrated on it by humanity's self interest (and, finally, self destruction). If we have an international movement toward sustainability, this is also due to this amazing branch of photography. Secondly, even blinking has a carbon footprint. As long as there is a small number of photographers doing it, it is truly negligible in comparison with the big generators (industry, transportation and buildings). It is not an exorbitant price to pay (so far) for its very valuable contributions.

If you haven't already, I would encourage you to read the most popular book in the world (and arguably, the most accurate, considering how most books reveal glaring inaccuracies within the first 100 years).

It is important to preserve the earth for our children and grandchildren. We must take advantage of its resources today - as well as tomorrow.

more than 3 billion passengers per year by plane, don't know for helicopter:how many take this "type of photography" and what about their carbon footprint ?on the contrary this type of photography can bring you to think about the world and aim to reduce the / your carbon footprint

The carbon footprint or environmental cost of this pales to other human activities.I have been through this; analyzing just about every environment impact we do. I ended up with the idea that there's no way around it as humans are made to conquer its environment. It will help if we create a better and abundant source of energy than we have today.

Exactly. It is economy that dictates the footprint. If you buy something for $1000 it probably has 10 times the footprint of something that costs $100, simplified. It is self regulating. Those super expensive things with huge footprints is no worse than cheaper ones with small footprint.

Oil prices will go up a lot eventually, likely before the environment is "ruined", or we'll due from some worldwide disease first anyhow. USA is pretty darn "clean" - China and India are filthy, and even Europe is not as green. Then there's 3rd world countries where they dump their waste into the nearest river.

Be careful @ColorBandit, the CO2 mafia is fierce an numerous! I can go so far as digging/drilling up carbon based fuel that have been collected during hundreds of millions of years and burn it up in 200 years is just insane. A totally unforgivable experiment with our precious atmosphere. Not to talk about that it is irreplaceable. We burn it one million times faster than it was produced. I say it again, one million times faster. We have thereby increased the CO2 content from 300 PPM to 400 PPM. Not bad, for just one species.

If that really means catastrophe, I have not the slightest idea. And I really think no one else either knows. But - it is a great risk taking. With a high stake.

BTW - glaciers melting prove nothing. We have had a warming even before we started burning fuel at high speed. I am personally more worried about our atmosphere than our glaciers and even flooding. The atmosphere is our main living environment. Do we damage it, we are in great trouble.

I'm referring to the original post....reminds me of when Obama flies to some location to talk about climate change or my Al Gore supporting coworker who bought a full size SUV and then buys a house 70 miles from work.We should all try to be greener though - don't live 20+ miles from work; etc.Saves time and money too!

Beautiful shots Ezra. Couldn't agree more with your intro. I include aerial photography in my wedding packages as I live in a wine region and it's the only way to fully capture the landscape in its entirety, but the risk/return is far more skewered toward the risk than people often realise. Thanks for taking the time to put this together, looking forward to the next addition.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.